JUDGMENT :- 1. The defendant is the appellant. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit property. The respondent / plaintiff is a Public Religious and Charitable Trust and it is the owner of the suit property. The suit property was let out to the appellant/defendant, on a monthly rent of Rs.80/- p.m. The defendant, who had failed to pay the rent from February 1998 had sent a banker's cheque for Rs.7,600/- along with a notice dated 27.12.2005, being the rent from February 1998 till December 2005. The respondent / plaintiff sent a reply denying various statements made in the notice dated 27.12.2005 issued by the appellant / defendant and also terminated the tenancy with the expiry of 28.02.2006 and thereafter filed a suit for eviction. 3. The appellant contested the suit by stating that there is no default in the payment of rent and he has been regularly paying the rent and due to the behavior of the respondent in not receiving the rent, the entire rent was paid along with the notice dated 27.12.2005 and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 4. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the respondent / plaintiff is a Public Religious and Charitable Trust and therefore, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and rent control) Act 1960 would not be applicable to it and therefore, the appellant / defendant is liable to be evicted. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no arrears of rent payable by the appellant/defendant and therefore the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit for eviction without specifying the reasons for which the building is required by the respondent. He further submitted that there are other properties belonging to the respondent and no action was taken in respect of those tenants and this appellant alone was dragged by the respondent to the Court. 6. I am unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Admittedly the suit property belongs to the respondent which is a Public Religious and Charitable Organisation and, therefore, the suit property is exempted from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and rent control) Act 1960. 6. I am unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Admittedly the suit property belongs to the respondent which is a Public Religious and Charitable Organisation and, therefore, the suit property is exempted from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and rent control) Act 1960. Admittedly notice was issued terminating the tenancy of the appellant by the end of February 2006 and there was no reply from him and thereafter the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Further in respect of tenancy, which are not governed by the Act 1980, no reason need be stated by the landlord for eviction of the tenant and the only requirement is to give a proper notice. Therefore, even assuming that the appellant has not committed any default in payment of rent, the landlord is entitled to get eviction by issuing a proper notice and in this case as rightly held by the both the Courts below, proper notice was given and eviction was sought for by the respondent/plaintiff. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Courts below and no substantial questions of law arises for consideration. 7. In the result, the above second appeal is dismissed. Having regard to the fact that the appellant is in possession of the property for a long period, six months time is granted for handing over the vacant possession of the suit property by the appellant, on condition of filing an undertaking affidavit within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.